UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2016-00292
`Patent 6,012,007
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Introduction. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent. .................................................................... 2
`
`3. Argument. .................................................................................................. 8
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek. ............. 8
`
`i. Overview of Schousek. .......................................................................... 9
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by Schousek
`is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight Parameter
`Recited in the Challenged Claims. ......................................................... 11
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative Weight
`Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims. ....................................... 13
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment
`has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged
`Claims. ................................................................................................... 15
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as Recited
`in the Challenged Claims. ...................................................................... 18
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claims 17 and 21 are
`Obvious in View of Schousek and Fu. ................................................... 19
`
`i. Fu Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative Weight
`Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment has
`Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged Claims. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion. .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 19, 24
`
`Hartness Int’l. Inc. v. Simplimatic Engineering Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 24
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ..................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 14
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 15
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................. 12
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 12, 17, 18
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ...................................................................... 12, 15, 17, 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`1. Introduction.
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to the patentability of claims 17 and 21 of U.S.
`
`Patent 6,012,007 (the “’007 Patent”) should be denied and the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) not institute trial because Schousek
`
`fails to teach or suggest allowing deployment of air bags when a relative
`
`weight parameter used by a vehicle restraint system is above a first
`
`threshold, establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold, and setting
`
`a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold
`
`and deployment has been allowed for a given time. As explained below, and
`
`contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, the minimum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat as used by Schousek is not equivalent to the first threshold of the
`
`relative weight parameter recited in the challenged claims. This is because in
`
`Schousek, air bag deployment is not allowed when seat sensors detect a
`
`weight above that minimum weight of an occupied infant seat. Instead, air
`
`bag deployment is inhibited in such circumstances unless the seat sensors
`
`also detect a forward-facing infant seat.
`
`
`
`Further, even if one were to equate the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat as used by Schousek with the first threshold of the
`
`relative weight parameter recited in the challenged claims, it would still be
`
`the case that Schousek fails to teach or suggest establishing a lock threshold
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time. Instead, in the system described by Schousek, air bag
`
`deployment is permitted or inhibited irrespective of whether or not
`
`deployment has been allowed for a given time. Indeed, in some instances air
`
`bag deployment may be permitted even if previously such deployment was
`
`inhibited, or even if the seat sensors determine that a seat occupant weighs
`
`less than a purported “lock threshold.” Even if Fu is deemed to teach such a
`
`lock flag, the remaining deficiencies of Schousek remain.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove the unpatentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims and the Board should find in favor of Patent Owner
`
`on all issues nominated for trial.
`
`
`
`2. Overview of the ‘007 Patent.
`The ‘007 Patent discloses a method of controlling airbag deployment
`
`using pressure sensors to allow or inhibit airbag deployment based on
`
`passenger weight. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. According to the specification, air
`
`bag deployment is inhibited when a seat is empty or occupied by a small
`
`child. Deployment is allowed when the seat is occupied by a larger
`
`passenger. Id. at 2:55-58.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘007 patent (below) shows a typical airbag (or
`
`supplemental inflatable restraint -- “SIR”) system:
`
`
`
`Id. at 1:15-16, 2:18-19. An accelerometer (15) senses an impending crash
`
`and a microprocessor (16) receives signals from the accelerometer and
`
`determines whether to deploy an air bag. Id. at 2:46-49. On the other side of
`
`the figure, seat occupant sensors (26, 28) communicate with a separate
`
`microprocessor (22), which determines whether airbag deployment should
`
`be inhibited. Id. at 3:4-7. The occupant sensors are a series of voltage
`
`dividers made of resistors (26) in series with a pressure sensor or variable
`
`resistor (28). Id. at 2:64-3:2. The seat occupant detector microprocessor (22)
`
`analyzes seat occupant sensor voltage in order to derive passenger weight
`
`information. Id. at 2:61-3:7.
`
`The positions of the sensors are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘007
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, which are reproduced below (with annotations added to Fig. 2). Id. at
`
`2:20-21.
`
`The seat cushion has an upper surface 38 and a lower surface 40. Id. at 3:21-
`
`22. The lower surface is “seated on a rigid sheet or plastic form.” Id. at 3:21-
`
`
`
`23. The form (42) “holds a dozen pressure sensors 28 on its upper surface so
`
`that the sensors are pressed against the bottom surface 40 of the seat
`
`cushion.” Id. at 3:24-27.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘007 Patent, which is reproduced below, is a flowchart
`
`overview of the operation of the system. Id. at 3:36. The seat occupant
`
`detector microprocessor (22) reads the sensor values (46). Id. at 3:37-38.
`
`One sensor at a time is turned on and sampled once every 100 msec. Id. at
`
`3:40-41. The readings are then bias corrected -- a bias calibrated for each
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`sensor is subtracted from each sensor reading (48). Id. at 3:37-41. Then,
`
`decision measures are computed (50) and decision algorithms are run (52) to
`
`produce an output, which output (54) represents a decision (with an
`
`accompanying signal) to either inhibit (56) or allow (58) air bag deployment.
`
`Id. at 3:41-46.
`
`The decision measure computations involve calculation of: the total
`
`force (the sum of the sensor
`
`outputs) and a total force
`
`threshold; sensor load ratings
`
`and measure; the long term
`
`average of the sensor readings
`
`and its threshold; and group
`
`sensor measures and thresholds.
`
`Id. at 3:48-55; 4:11-15. The
`
`different thresholds are variable
`
`and may increase and decrease over time. Id at 3:56-60. Inhibit times (during
`
`which no variation is permitted) are selected to control the rates of increase
`
`and decrease. Id. at 3:60-61.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`The main decision algorithm uses an “Adult Lock Flag” as shown in
`
`Figure 8 of the ‘007 Patent (below). Id. at 4:36-37. Here, the term “adult” is
`
`used to distinguish
`
`between an occupant
`
`of a certain weight and
`
`a “child.” Id. at 4:37-
`
`40. A lock threshold
`
`and an unlock
`
`threshold are used to
`
`determine whether an
`
`“adult,” or occupant
`
`above a threshold
`
`mass, is in the seat. Id. at 4:36-44. A lock timer measures the time after the
`
`vehicle ignition is turned on, and a lock delay on the order of one to five
`
`minutes is used. Id. at 4:42-44.
`
`A final decision algorithm for whether to deploy an airbag is shown in
`
`Figure 10 of the ‘007 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced at left.
`
`Id. at 5:8-9. A counter
`
`tabulates from zero to 255,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`and is incremented if an allow decision is made and decremented if an
`
`inhibit decision is made. Id. at 5:9-13. Final consent to deploy is granted
`
`when the count exceeds 133. Id. at 5:13-14. If consent is granted, a count
`
`over 123 is needed to maintain the state, and if the count falls below 123, the
`
`consent is revoked and deployment is inhibited. Id. at 5:9-18. By averaging
`
`measures over time, the system can account for occupant movement. Id. at
`
`5:31-33.
`
`Claim 17 is the only independent claim of the ‘007 Patent challenged
`
`in the present petition and it is reproduced below:
`
`17. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing
`deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a
`person of at least a minimum weight comprising:
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant
`to produce sensor outputs;
`a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and
`programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according
`to sensor response and particularly programmed to
`determine measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter,
`allow deployment when the relative weight
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`parameter is above the first threshold,
`establish a lock threshold above the first threshold,
`set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`allowed for a given time,
`establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`of an empty seat,
`clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`below the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`
`
`3. Argument.
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schousek, US Pat. 5,474,327 (Ex. 1002) does not anticipate claims 17
`
`and 21. Schousek describes a system that is, arguably, similar to that
`
`illustrated in Figure 1 of the ‘007 Patent, but which employs very different
`
`procedures for controlling deployment of an air bag. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at
`
`Figs. 1 and 5A-5B. For example, Schousek fails to teach or suggest allowing
`
`deployment of an air bag when a relative weight parameter used by a vehicle
`
`restraint system is above a first threshold, establishing a lock threshold
`
`above the first threshold, and setting a lock flag when the relative weight
`
`parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for
`
`a given time.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Overview of Schousek.
`
`In Schousek, air bag deployment is determined based on an evaluation
`
`of the weight of a seat occupant vis-à-vis certain thresholds. If the total
`
`weight of the seat occupant is
`
`less than a minimum weight of
`
`an occupied infant seat, the seat
`
`is determined to be empty and
`
`air bag deployment is inhibited.
`
`If the total weight of the seat
`
`occupant is greater than a
`
`maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag
`
`deployment is not inhibited.
`
`Finally, if the total weight of the
`
`seat occupant is determined to
`
`be between the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat, air bag deployment depends on factors such as the legal requirements
`
`of where the vehicle is operated and/or whether the center of weight
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`distribution is forward or aft of a seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 –
`
`5:3; 5:23-50. This algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 5A of Schousek. See steps
`
`68 – 86 of Fig. 5A (reproduced above).
`
`Schousek also describes a fault detection procedure for an air bag
`
`control system. As illustrated in Fig. 5B (reproduced below), faults are
`
`detected by comparing the
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive
`
`loops of the process illustrated
`
`in Fig. 5A. Id. at 5:51 – 6:1. If
`
`the inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`consistent over five
`
`consecutive loops, it is deemed
`
`correct and that inhibit/no
`
`inhibit decision is forwarded to
`
`the air bag deployment module.
`
`Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the
`
`five decisions are not the same, a previous inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`forwarded to the air bag deployment module and a fault registered. If a large
`
`number of consecutive faults are noted, then a fault condition is reported to
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`the air bag deployment module. Id. at 5:61-67. If this problem persists, a
`
`fault indicator is illuminated. Id. at 6:2-6.
`
`
`
`ii. The Minimum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia:
`
`determin[ing] measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish[ing] a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter,
`allow[ing] deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:60-66. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Pet. at 21-22, the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, as taught by Schousek, is not
`
`equivalent to the recited “first threshold of the relative weight parameter.”
`
`
`
`According to Schousek, even if the seat sensors determine that the
`
`total weight of the seat occupant is greater than the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is not allowed. Ex. 1002 at 5:39-47.
`
`Instead, only if the center of weight distribution is determined to be not
`
`forward of a reference line—a condition indicative of a forward-facing
`
`infant seat—is air bag deployment permitted. Id. at 5:47-50.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`This is contrary to the requirements of claim 17. According to the
`
`claim, when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold,
`
`deployment is allowed. No other requirements need be met.
`
`A patent claim is “invalid for anticipation [only] if a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each and every limitation” of the claim. Schering Corp.
`
`v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, “The
`
`identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the
`
`… claim.”). Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). As demonstrated above, if one attempts to read the minimum weight
`
`of an occupied infant seat as a “first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter,” then Schousek fails to meet these requirements because even if
`
`that condition is met, air bag deployment is not allowed. Only if the center
`
`of weight distribution is determined to be consistent with a forward-facing
`
`infant seat is air bag deployment permitted. Ex. 1002 at 5:47-50.
`
`Consequently, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`iii. The Maximum Weight of an Occupied Infant Seat Taught by
`Schousek is Not Equivalent to the First Threshold of a Relative
`Weight Parameter Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the other threshold taught
`
`by Schousek—the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat—is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17. This is because whenever the seat sensors in Schousek determine
`
`that the total weight sensed is greater than the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is permitted. Ex. 1002 at 5:32-35.
`
`This decision (to permit air bag deployment) is stored in an array. Id. at Fig.
`
`5B el. 90. When five such concurrent decisions have been so stored, the
`
`decision to permit air bag deployment is transmitted to the SIR module. Id.
`
`at Fig. 5B el. 100. In addition, this new decision (to permit air bag
`
`deployment) will be become the “previous decision.” Id. at Fig. 5B el. 102.
`
`Petitioner reads the setting of a “previous decision” to allow
`
`deployment as setting a lock flag. Pet. at 22-24. As indicated above, the
`
`“previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever there are five
`
`consecutive decisions to permit same. This will occur whenever the seat
`
`sensors determine that the total weight sensed is greater than the maximum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`However, claim 17 requires that the lock flag be set when “the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold,” and the lock threshold must
`
`be established “above the first threshold.” Ex. 1001 at 7:63-66. In Schousek,
`
`there is no threshold that is greater than the maximum weight of an occupied
`
`infant seat. Therefore, if the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`deemed equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter,”
`
`there is no lock threshold that is established “above the first threshold.”
`
`Instead, the “previous decision” will be set to allow deployment whenever
`
`there are five consecutive loops in which the total weight sensed is greater
`
`than the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat. Accordingly, if
`
`Petitioner contends that the maximum weight of an occupied infant seat is
`
`equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter” recited in
`
`claim 17, then claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek because there is no
`
`lock threshold established “above the first threshold.” Lindemann
`
`Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be
`
`“arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated . . . as mere
`
`catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set
`
`forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.”). Net MoneyIN,
`
`Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of
`
`the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
`
`in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
`
`invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.”).
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`iv. Schousek Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag
`Deployment has Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the
`Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Id. at 8:1-3.
`
`Schousek techs no such feature. Accordingly, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`As discussed above, Schousek illustrates a fault detection scheme in
`
`Fig. 5B. Faults are detected by comparing the inhibit/no inhibit decisions
`
`reached in five consecutive loops of sensing the total weight detected by the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`seat sensors. Ex. 1002 at 5:51 – 6:1. If the inhibit/no inhibit decision is
`
`consistent over five consecutive loops, it is deemed correct and that
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module.
`
`Id. at 5:51-61. If, however, the five decisions are not the same, a previous
`
`inhibit/no inhibit decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module
`
`and a fault is registered. Id. at 5:61-64. In other words, irrespective of the
`
`value of the stored “previous decision,” whenever the seat sensors of
`
`Schousek sense a weight such that five consecutive, common inhibit/no
`
`inhibit decisions are reached, that determination is forwarded to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Id. at Fig. 5B els. 92-100.
`
`Thus, the “previous decision” of Schousek will be set to whichever
`
`determination, inhibit / no inhibit, is reached over a set of five preceding,
`
`consistent determinations. Id. at 5:55-61. In some instances, this will be a
`
`decision to inhibit (not allow) air bag deployment.
`
`Furthermore, in circumstances where the “previous decision” of
`
`Schousek has been to inhibit air bag deployment, when the next five
`
`determinations of the total weight are such as to permit air bag deployment,
`
`that decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment module without ever
`
`consulting the “previous decision.” Indeed, according to Schousek, the value
`
`of the previous deployment is irrelevant and is not consulted when a current
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`decision to inhibit or not inhibit air bag deployment is sent to the air bag
`
`deployment module. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 5B (showing els. 98 and 100 without
`
`consulting a “previous decision”).
`
`Thus, Schousek does not teach “set[ting] a lock flag when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time,” as required by claim 17. Instead, in Schousek, the
`
`“previous decision” is set to indicate the result of five common, consecutive
`
`determinations of the seat occupant weight, and that “previous decision” is
`
`never consulted when a decision (inhibit / no inhibit) is sent to the air bag
`
`deployment module—i.e., regardless of whether deployment has been
`
`allowed for a given time. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by Schousek.
`
`Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`v. Schousek Does Not Teach Clearing a Lock Flag When a Relative
`Weight Parameter is Below an Unlock Threshold for a Time, as
`Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“clear[ing] the [lock] flag when the relative weight parameter is below the
`
`unlock threshold for a time.” Ex. 1001 at 8:6-7. Schousek teaches no such
`
`feature. Instead, Schousek states that a decision to inhibit deployment is sent
`
`to the air bag deployment module, and also set as a “previous decision,” not
`
`when a relative weight parameter falls below an unlock threshold for a
`
`period of time, but rather when the decision to inhibit deployment of the
`
`airbag remains unchanged over five consecutive fault monitoring loops. Ex.
`
`1002 at 5:58-61.
`
`As discussed above, a decision to inhibit deployment is made when
`
`the total weight of the seat occupant is determined to be between the
`
`minimum weight of an occupied infant seat and the maximum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, and the center of weight distribution is forward of a
`
`seat reference line. Id. at 2:12-46; 4:55 – 5:3; 5:23-50. Thus, even though the
`
`seat is occupied, and the total weight is above the minimum weight of an
`
`occupied infant seat, air bag deployment is inhibited and that decision is set
`
`as the current decision. Id. at 5:58-60. Thus, claim 17 is not anticipated by
`
`Schousek. Schering Corp., 339 F.3d at 1377.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Claim 21 depends from claim 17. Because each dependent claim
`
`necessarily includes the limitations of its respective parent, independent
`
`claim, 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 21 is not anticipated by Schousek for at
`
`least the reasons specified above.
`
`
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate that Claims 17 and 21 are
`Obvious in View of Schousek and Fu.
`
`Petitioner contends Fu somehow teaches a “lock flag” as required by
`
`claim 17. Pet. at 30. Even if true, however, the combined teachings of
`
`Schousek and Fu would still not suggest the subject matter of claim 17
`
`because, as explained above, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Pet. at 21-22,
`
`the minimum weight of an occupied infant seat, as taught by Schousek, is
`
`not equivalent to the recited “first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter,” and Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the other
`
`threshold taught by Schousek—the maximum weight of an occupied infant
`
`seat—is equivalent to the “first threshold of the relative weight parameter”
`
`recited in claim 17. Hence, Petitioner cannot show a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the challenged claim is unpatentable, CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`
`349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (obviousness requires a suggestion
`
`of all limitations in a claim), citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985
`
`(CCPA 1974); In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (all words
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`in a claim must be considered in determining patentability) and no inter
`
`partes review should be instituted on the proposed ground.
`
`
`
`i. Fu Does Not Teach Setting a Lock Flag When a Relative Weight
`Parameter is Above a Lock Threshold and Air Bag Deployment has
`Been Allowed for a Given Time, as Recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`Fu describes a system that senses a vehicle seat occupant and attempts
`
`to discriminate between rearward-facing child seats and other occupants. Ex.
`
`1003 at 3:47-54. As shown in Figure 1, the system includes a seat back
`
`sensor 42 and a seat cushion sensor 44. The state of these sensors is used to
`
`determine the
`
`presence or
`
`absence of a
`
`seat occupant
`
`and whether or
`
`not to permit
`
`airbag deployment as shown in the following table:
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Id. at 7:13-22 (Table 1). Figure 7b shows the control logic used to
`
`distinguish between rear-facing child seats, other seat occupants, and other
`
`conditions. Id. at 7:23-31.
`
`
`
`According to Fu,
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`[A]t block 50, the air bag [AB] is off and the air bag latch
`flag [F] is 0.
`
`At block 52, it is tested to determine whether there is any
`pressure on either of transducers 44 or 42.
`
`At block 54, if there is no pressure on either of cushions
`1 or 2 and the air bag latch flag is set, then a
`predetermined delay is entered at block 56 (i.e. there was
`an occupant previously seated on the cushions).
`
`At block 58, if the delay reaches a predetermined amount
`of time such as 5 seconds, then the logic reverts back to
`the beginning before block 50. However, if a delay has
`not timed out at block 58, then block 52 is re-entered and
`the signals from the first and second cushions 18 and 16,
`respectively, are again tested. Blocks 52, 54 and 58 take
`into account a special condition. For example, a car can
`hit a bump so that the occupant involuntarily leaves the
`seat or the occupant can voluntarily leave his/her seating
`position on the seat.
`
`At block 60, after it has been determined that one of the
`transducers in one of the cushions 16 or 18 is sensing a
`predetermined pressure, then it is tested if the first
`cushion 18 has a high pressure and the second cushion 16
`has a low pressure. At block 62, if the determination at
`block 60 is positive, then the air bag latch flag is tested to
`see whether it is "on." If it is "on," (i.e. there was an
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`occupant) then the algorithm proceeds again to block 52.
`If the air bag latch flag at block 62 is not "on," then the
`air bag control signal should be emitted to turn the air
`bag actuation circuit 48 "off" at block 64.
`
`If the decision at block 60 is negative, then at block 66 it
`is determined whether both sensors in the top and lower
`cushions are experiencing pressure. If not, then logic at
`block 52 is again entered.
`
`If the transducers are both experiencing pressure as tested
`at block 66, then at block 68, the air bag actuation circuit
`48 should be turned "on," and, at block 70, the air bag
`latch flag should be set high. After block 70, then logic at
`block 52 is again reentered.
`
`Id. at 7:62 – 8: 33. Thus, the latch flag, F, is set irrespective of any value of
`
`weight sensed by either of sensors 42 and 44, but instead depending solely
`
`on whether either sensor senses any pressure at all.
`
`As indicated above, claim 17 of the ‘007 Patent requires, inter alia,
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.” Id. at 8:1-3.
`
`Fu techs no such feature. Instead, in Fu the lock flag is set irrespective of the
`
`weight sensed by either sensor 42 or 44. Ex. 1003 at 7:62 – 8: 33.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Recall that Petitioner reads the “first threshold” as as the minimum
`
`weight of an occupied infant seat. Pet. at 21, 41. Accordingly, even if the
`
`lock flag of Fu were incorporated in the system described by Schousek, one
`
`would not arrive at the subject matter of claim 17 because the lock flag
`
`would be set upon any indication of pressure on any seat cushion, and not
`
`only when the relative weight parameter is above the lock threshold, which
`
`itself must be above a first threshold, as required by claim 17. Even in a
`
`circumstance where the lock flag has been set for a period of time (5 seconds
`
`according to Fu, id. at 7:66 – 8:4), it remains the case that when the lock flag
`
`is reset (at 50) and set again (at any of 54, 62, or 70), that setting does not
`
`depend on any relative weight parameter being above the lock threshold as
`
`required by claim 17. Instead, any pressure on either sensor will result in the
`
`lock flag being set. Id. at 7:66 – 8:4.
`
`Thus, the combination of Schousek and Fu does not teach or suggest
`
`“set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is above the lock
`
`threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time,” as required by
`
`claim 17. CFMT, Inc., 349 F.3d at 1342. Claim 21 depends from claim 17
`
`and, therefore, is patentable over the combination of Schousek and Fu for at
`
`least the same reasons as claim 17. Hartness Int’l. Inc. v. Simplimatic
`
`Engineering Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (a claim that
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`depends from a nonobvious independent claim is nonobvious because it
`
`contains all of the limitations of that independent claim plus a further
`
`limitation). Accordingly, no inter partes review should be instituted on the
`
`proposed ground.
`
`
`
`
`4. Conclusion.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, the Board should not institute inter
`
`partes review on any of the grounds proposed by Petitioner. Further, as this
`
`is Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, it is not a comprehensive rebuttal
`
`to all arguments raised by the Petition. If a trial is instituted, Patent Owner
`
`reserves the right to contest the Petition on all grounds permitted under the
`
`applicable rules. Moreover, nothing herein should be construed as a
`
`concession or admission by Patent Owner as to any fact or argument
`
`proffered in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.f
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
